This writ petition is filed, seeking to have the orders passed by the 2nd respondent disciplinary authority in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, vide proceedings dated 15-4-1999, as confirmed by the 1st respondent-appellate authority, vide proceedings dated 23-8-1999, quashed.

2. Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent - bank on 06-01-1977. While he was working as a clerk, at the Kothapeta branch of the respondent bank, he was served charge sheet, dated 13-06-1998, by the disciplinary authority, on 27-06-1998, for gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank (under clause 19.50) of the bipartite settlement. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days. The petitioner, vide letter dated 03-09-1998, sought for certain documents, receipt of which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent on 06-09-1998. The petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 4-9-1998, that since he had failed to submit his explanation, the disciplinary authority had ordered for an enquiry and that an enquiry officer was being appointed. Petitioner would contend that since, along with the charge sheet, no list of documents and witnesses was supplied, to enable him to submit his reply to the charge sheet, the action of the respondents in appointing an enquiry officer was illegal. On being advised, to obtain the documents he had sought for from the enquiry officer, the petitioner in his letter dated 12-10-1998 is said to have pointed out the lapses on the part of the respondents in not furnishing him the list of documents. In response thereto the 2nd respondent informed him, vide letter dated 14-10-1998, that an enquiry had already been ordered on 3-09-1998 and the same had been communicated to the petitioner on 04-09-1998. Petitioner would contend that he is entitled, as of right, to have the list of documents and list of witnesses forwarded along with the charge sheet to enable him to prepare for his defence and to submit his written statement of defence and that non-supply thereof would render the charge sheet vague and incomplete thereby denying reasonable opportunity of defending himself.

3. The 3rd respondent, vide letter dated 03-10-1998, informed the petitioner that the first date of enquiry had been fixed on 26-10-1998 and that, in accordance with clause "19.12(a) of the bipartite settlement, the petitioner should participate in the enquiry along with his defence representative. The petitioner is said to have participated in the enquiry" on 26-10-1998 along with his defence representative and to have informed the 3rd respondent that he had not yet submitted his reply to the charge sheet, inasmuch as the list of documents and witnesses had not been furnished to him. The management representative, vide letter dated 26-10-1998, supplied the list of documents and witnesses along with copies of documents which formed part of the enquiry. The petitioners defence representative required the 3rd respondent to adjourn the enquiry of a later date to enable them to go through the documents and prepare for their defence and for effective cross-examination of the management witness. The 3rd respondent, without accepting the petitioners request, is said to have proceeded further in the matter and to have ordered the management representative to lead his evidence. Petitioner would contend that the enquiry officer should have adjourned the enquiry, by giving him three clear days time, to prepare himself and to verify the documents furnished to him at the commencement of the enquiry held on 26-10-1998. Petitioner would submit that the examination in chief, of the sole witness on behalf of the management, was completed on 26-10-1998 and, after repeated requests, the proceedings were adjourned to the next day i.e., 27-10-1998. Petitioner would attribute bias to the enquiry officer. Petitioner would rely on A. Sadanand v. Syndic